Constantino v. Michigan Department of State Police
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53098
W.D. Mich.2011Background
- Michigan requires motorcyclists to wear USDOT-approved crash helmets and imposes civil infractions for violations under Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.658(4).
- Rule 28.951, promulgated by the Michigan State Police, requires helmets to meet USDOT specifications; USDOT standard sets minimum performance requirements but not design details.
- In Oct. 2006 the MSP created a Novelty Helmet Webpage to aid officers in quickly determining at a glance helmet compliance for enforcement purposes.
- Plaintiffs ABATE of Michigan and individual motorcyclists sue for injunctive and declaratory relief challenging the Webpage under the APA and asserting constitutional/state-law violations as applied.
- The Court previously rejected a facial challenge to delegation and vagueness; the current cross-motions address APA reliance on the Webpage and Helmet Law as applied.
- The Court will grant Defendants summary judgment on all claims, and deny Plaintiffs’ motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Novelty Helmet Webpage a rule under the APA? | Webpage is a governing rule not properly promulgated. | Webpage is an explanatory guideline, not a rule altering USDOT standard. | Webpage is not a rule; summary judgment for Defendants. |
| Does the Helmet Law as applied authorize helmet inspections to verify compliance? | No express statutory/Rule-based authority to peer inside helmets during detentions. | Detentions for record checks implicitly authorize helmet interior inspection to enforce the statute. | Inspection of inside of helmet is implied; summary judgment for Defendants. |
| Does the enforcement scheme violate the Fourth/14th Amendments by lacking probable cause when a helmet is worn? | If helmet is worn, no probable cause to stop or inspect. | Visual assessment of helmet style and fit can establish probable cause that it is non-USDOT. | Probable cause may be established by exterior appearance; summary judgment for Defendants. |
| Does the Webpage’s reliance to identify compliance conflict with federal/state law and the APA? | Relying on the Webpage creates unlawful standards not promulgated as a rule. | Webpage merely clarifies the USDOT standard incorporated by Rule 28.951. | No APA violation; Defendants entitled to summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (Supreme Court 1986) (summary judgment standard: absence of genuine issue of material fact)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court 1986) (material facts in genuine dispute require trial)
- Tryc v. Michigan Veterans' Facility, 451 Mich. 129 (Mich. 1996) (statutory intent and interpretation guide enforcement)
- Reardon v. Dep't of Mental Health, 430 Mich. 398 (Mich. 1988) (AP A rule definition and interpretive scope)
- Detroit Base Coalition for Human Rights of Handicapped v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 431 Mich. 172 (Mich. 1988) (APA rule-type analysis and procedural due process)
- AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. Dep't of Mental Health, 452 Mich. 1 (Mich. 1996) (broad vs narrow construction of rule)
- Heritage Manor, Inc. v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 218 Mich.App. 608 (Mich. App. 1996) (non-promulgated policy bulletins cannot be enforced as rules)
- Delta Co. v. Dep't of Natural Res., 118 Mich. App. 458 (Mich. App. 1982) (APA guideline vs rule distinction)
- United States v. Blair, 524 F.3d 740 (6th Cir. 2008) (probable cause defined and applied to factual scenarios)
- United States v. Jackson, 470 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2006) (probable cause and reasonable suspicion standards)